From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sun Dec 21 16:52:33 2025 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: Consequential losses due to Justice cock up References: <10hrfuh$2mtv0$1@dont-email.me> <4540888817.89fafebe@uninhabited.net> <0m2mdIEyv8QpFALK@perry.uk> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17663348865615] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 16:52:32 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Please resubmit without the first sentence. The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Dec 21 16:34:46 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=1SuZwXJ9q5SnxBeIb9GgaCa4ULXk04W29//Byj2bwQo=; t=1766334880; x=1766939680; b=PpGcDt8aDUKq7WQmYG/tC14Pg7iJT7cXYinhxhGSKUPfVPeKGd7GDyi3pWFck XU34rwgBqpO7Ng > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Consequential losses due to Justice cock up > Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 16:34:38 +0000 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: <10hrfuh$2mtv0$1@dont-email.me> > > <4540888817.89fafebe@uninhabited.net> <0m2mdIEyv8QpFALK@perry.uk> > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net RbDdhsbRXk2bW/f+18OaqwB+ejK2X8nHPrQSR5MA0Ee5dn3VJz > Cancel-Lock: sha1:hWP6LTx79tG8medjPKxheYftD4Q= sha256:ZxpA/SX6FU3rXvhGb5b029xzfHrGQJqMwEVFplOwJdU= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-US > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 251221-6, 12/21/2025), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 68 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=6.8 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 21/12/2025 02:10 pm, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , at 11:58:15 on Sun, 21 > > Dec 2025, JNugent remarked: > >> On 21/12/2025 09:24 am, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> In message , at 23:56:27 on Sat, 20 > >>> Dec 2025, JNugent remarked: > >>>> On 20/12/2025 07:22 pm, Roland Perry wrote: > >>>>> In message , at 00:45:02 on Sat, > >>>>> 20  Dec  2025, JNugent remarked: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>  I think the reason is that if you are insuring your car for > >>>>>>>>> (eg)  other  younger family members to drive, they'll be much > >>>>>>>>> careful  not  to bump  into things, because dad will give them > >>>>>>>>> a clip  round the  ear  when they  get back home. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A 50-yr-old partner is one thing, but there is no obvious reason > >>>>>>>> why  the premium should be lower when a teenaged driver is added > >>>>>>>> to the  policy. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The "clip round the ear" theory doesn't hold water in those > >>>>>>>> circumstances, because the car is simply safer from damage if > >>>>>>>> the teenager doesn't drive it at all (see premiums for teenage > >>>>>>>> drivers' >>>>>own cars). > >>>>> > >>>>>>>  It appears you don't know much about risk management. For > >>>>>>> example  if  the  very careful teenager is driving the car then > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Teenagers are not usually treated as "very careful" by insurance > >>>>>> companies. > >>> > >>>>>  You appear to have lost the plot. Again. > >>> > >>>>>  They might not be careful with their own car, but will be when > >>>>> driving  dad's. > >>>> > >>>> Please show your working out. > >>>> > >>>> Why would an eighteen-year-old be adjudged to be careful in his > >>>> dad's  car, when his own Vauxhall Nova's policy premium would be up > >>>> in the  £4,000 range? > > > >>>  Because when he brings his dad's £50k Audi back with a dent in the > >>> side,  he'll get a clip round the ear and banned from ever driving it > >>> again. > >> > >> And that's enough to reduce the insurer's risk by thousands of pounds > >> per year, is it? > > > > Who said "thousands of pounds per year"? I didn't. Are you hearing > > strange voices in the night... > > You are proving very forgetful on this. > > The sub-thread had its origins in the (mostly true) assertion that the > car insurance premium of a mature adult can be cheaper if an additional > driver is named on it. > > That's logical enough where the additional driver is a qualified and > experienced driver at a similar stage of life, or even a grown-up son or > daughter of 30. > > But there was a claim that putting a teenage child (offspring) on a > parent's policy will reduce the premium. That defies logic, especially > since a late teens newly-qualified driver can and will be charged > several thousands of pounds for a policy for their own car. That is > because people at that age are a much increased risk for the insurer. > > But now, the claim is that the threat of parental disapproval for damage > to the parent's car, driven occasionally as a named driver, is all that > is needed to moderate and enbound the driving behaviour of a member of > an age group notoriously at great risk of accidents, damage and injuries. > > Everyone must make their own minds up, but that one does not compute for > me. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmlIJdAACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6e2gf/QHA/2ksjjVHuHwEca7QW3pwfvZAl3Q4aj5epQRR3uIfdYJ+8MQFFDp4W kDRd/hn9m4vb55mr4WlKwEBDMXnM66RYrLSduKo5zlMM992o8CWpQYhvgQz+sRDj J+zv4dBr5X4UB08v/yptEL7GuijDTNWRuAHwR88syzgYwt/dPQ1xfOWtj4idL8+/ DeZE8N9m6IhxpHRPe8dYPUXAmrV7yX/6QxmQD/hZA2at0iiVICo9900GiFLvtedy fmXMoIwaC4DBDvEAITWmWrQ5EwozIIEOm4/pTyyCB3TWulQKw7A9CfaPmtIyV6ZV YHrPhGKFOSxKcPhIcz//HkESYG7nCQ== =UHZj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----